Sorry, guys. I knocked my money plant off the window sill. It's a little beat up, but back in the pot and should recover over the next couple of weeks. If not, I'll break into the special nutes (they're what caused all the growth last year).

Thanks for the responses. I don't mean for that any individuals or group would act as a full redeemer.

Simply that they would burn anyone who buys above $105 or sells bellow $95 and after a period of stability during which Bitcoin dispensers become more widespread and merchant adoption increases, slowly bring this upward and let Bitcoin spread its wings while they sit on the bulk of their stashes. Obviously, one wouldn't bother if the swings got too large or other large players entered the market, but for a pod of whales it seems possible.

The big whale dumps really lowered the price and confirmed that a few entities have a fair reserve of USD. Some of them may still have a ton of XBT. Collusion between a small number of early adopters isn't obviously impossible. It could well be in their interests to act as a Bitcoin central bank for a couple of weeks or months, letting infrastructure develop, bleeding off a percentage of each of their hordes to increase the probability of ultimate success and greater riches.

Perhaps its obvious to someone in the pits that such entities would be fleeced by a large number of smaller traders or that said traders would lose interest, is necessarily this the case? They only need to make market moving purchases when it drifts ~10% from $100 and not absorb any absurd asks.

Economists often rely on "natural experiments", since it it almost impossible to persuade a representative sample of humans to change their entire lives in order to generate data.

In these hypothetical cases, many models will be applied to interpret the data generated. The societies do not exist in isolation to answer someone's question.

While I would not currently choose to live in one of these societies, I see no large involuntary human cost to their activities and a great deal of potential gain. Even if the next 1000 artificial societies fail, we'll have access to a great deal of information regarding how not to order societies. It's difficult to imagine anyone opposing their activities without malicious intent.